
G 



arti 




couo 
dbocA ihe War 



K^ — ■■ 



J 



Div. of^Si^g-rapby 

Lib. of Coi»S4'ess 
(Not yet Catalog- u^dj 



CURRENT 

MISCONCEPTIONS 

ABOUT THE WAR 

Karl H. von Wiegand's Interview with the Crown Prince 

What is German *' Culture" ? 

Has the U. S. Guaranteed Belgian Neutrality ? 

Chaos in the Rules of War 

The Contribution Levied Against Brussels 



1915 

THE FATHERLAND CORPORATION, inc. 
1 1 23 Broadway, New York 



1> 






f> 



<h 






CROWN PRINCE OF GERMANY 
INTERVIEWED 

** Preparation Was Our Duty," Declares Heir to Kaiser's 
Throne— Holds England Responsible 

By:_KARLlH. VON WIEGAND 

United Press Staff Correspojident 
{Copyright, 1914, by United Press. Copyright in Great Britain.) 

Headquarters of the Army of Crown Prince in France 
{hy courier via Namur, Aix-la-Chapelle and The Hague to London, 
by cable to New York), Nov. 20. — "Undoubtedly this is the 
most stupid, senseless and unnecessary war of modern times. 
It is a war not wanted by Germany, I can assure you, but it 
was forced on us, and the fact that we were so effectually pre- 
pared to defend ourselves is now being used as an argument to 
convince the world that we desired conflict." 

In these words Frederick William, Crown Prince of Germany 
and heir to the throne of the Kaiser, opened the first interview 
he has ever given to a foreign newspaper man, and the first direct 
statement made to the press by any member of the German 
royal family since the outbreak of the war. 

I arrived at the headquarters of the Fifth German army in 
an automobile, shortly before midnight. At daybreak, I received 
a call from Major Edler von der Planitz, personal aide de camp 
to the Crown Prince, who stated that his Imperial Highness 
wanted to welcome me, but that he was leaving for the firing 
line and would see me a little later in the day. 

When, some time later, the Crown Prince returned, I was 
presented. He greeted me cordially and without any of the 
stiffness or cool reserve that might have been expected. 

"I am very pleased to see you here," he said, "and I hope 
that you will find plenty to interest you. I want you to feel at 
liberty to go wherever you like." 

"I hope your Imperial Highness will pardon my Americanized 
German," I said, in stating to him some of the points in which 
I thought American readers would be chiefly interested. 

3 



4 CURRENT MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE WAR 

"Then let us talk English, if you feel that we can better thus 
express ourselves," was his quick reply. Acting on the sug- 
gestion the Crown Prince of Germany proceeded to give his first 

interview in English. 

An Uncalled-for War 

"I am a soldier, and therefore cannot discuss poHtics," said 
the Crown Prince, "but it seems to me that this whole business, 
all of this action that you see around here, is senseless, un- 
necessary and uncalled for. But Germany was left no choice 
in the matter. From the lowest to the highest we all know that 
we are fighting for our existence. I know that soldiers of the 
other nations probably say, and a great many of them probably 
think, the same thing. This does not alter the fact, however, 
that we are actually fighting for our national Hfe. 

"Since we knew that the present war was to be forced on us 
it became our highest duty to anticipate the struggle by every 
necessary and possible preparation for the defense of the Father- 
land, against the iron ring which our enemies have for years been 
carefully and steadily welding about us. 

"The fact that we foresaw and, as far as possible, forestalled 
the attempt to crush us within this ring, and the fact that we 
were prepared to defend ourselves is now being used as an argu- 
ment in an attempt to convince the world that we not only 
wanted this conflict, but that we are responsible for it. 

Germans Are a Unit 

"No power on earth will ever be able to convince our people 
that this war was not engineered solely and wholly with a view 
to crushing the German people, their Government, their institu- 
tions and all that they hold dear. As a result, you will find the 
German people are one grand unit imbued with a magnificent 
spirit of self-sacrifice." 

The scene of our conversation was the drawing-room of a 
small French villa, located a few miles directly back of the 
German fighting-lines and used by the Crown Prince as a head- 
quarters for himself and staff. The Crown Prince entered, 
accompanied by Major von der Planitz, who, after presenting 
me, withdrew. 

The young commander of the Gennan forces was dressed 
simply in the gray-green khaki of his troops, in a uniform devoid 



CURRENT MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE WAR 5 

of any decorations save a very small insignia of his rank of 
lieutenant-general and his recently-acquired black and white 
ribbon of the Order of the Iron Cross. He carried no sword, 
but toyed with a short swagger stick similar to those carried by 
English cavalry officers. 

Holds England Responsible 

Our conversation had been in progress but a short time when 
it became clear to me that the Crown Prince, like 99 per cent 
of the Germans I have met on the firing line and off of it, holds 
England responsible for the present war. 

The thing that impressed me most, however, was the fact 
that despite the intensity of his convictions he displayed none 
of the intense hatred or the bitterness toward the EngHsh which 
I have observed so constantly among people of all walks of Hfe 
since the outbreak of the war. On the contrary, there was a 
note of regret and almost one of sadness as he discussed this 
phase of the great issue. 

I quickly gained the impression that the Crown Prince is by 
no means the man he has been pictured in England and America. 

There is nothing of the fire-eater nor uncompromising warrior 
about him. He gave no evidence of gaining pleasure from his 
military experience or of dehghting in conflict. It was obvious 
that the carnage he has already witnessed has made a deep 
imprint on his naturally impressionistic mind, and he referred 
frequently to the losses and the suffering, not only of his own 
but of the enemy's forces. 

He was exceedingly generous at all times in his praise of the 
enemy as he had come in contact with them. If he was ever 
possessed of a reckless, dare-devil, carefree personality the last 
traces of it have apparently been removed by his work of the 
past few months. 

Sxuprised by America's Attitude 

Early in the conversation his Imperial Highness assumed the 
role of the interviewer and made evident his deep interest in the 
sentiment of America and Americans and his lack of under- 
standing of the general attitude of oiir country toward Germany's 
position. Like a great majority of all Germans, he is unable 
exactly to understand why there is not more sympathy in the 
United States for Germany. 



6 CURRENT ^IISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE WAR 

"There is no use or no purpose to be served by our closing 
our eyes," he said, ''to the fact that a very large part of the 
world is against us. 

"But it surprises me that America, to which we are bound 
by ties of friendship and blood as to no other neutral country; 
America, where millions of our people have gone and carried the 
German tongue and German ideas of Hberty and freedom, should 
be so totally unable to put itself in our place. 

"I would not be frank unless I admitted that it has been 
a surprise to me that Americans have not seen more clearly up 
to this time the position of Germany, entirely surrounded by 
jealous enemies, fighting for her existence; that they have not 
had a better understanding which would necessarily mean a 
higher appreciation of the unexampled sacrifices and heroism of 
our people, making this gigantic struggle with no other objective 
than the saving of the Fatherland." 

He attributed the attitude of America almost whoUy to 
England's control of the press and the world's channels of com- 
munication. He frankly admitted that in the past Germany has 
failed to appreciate the unportant role played by the press in 
world politics and in international affairs. He made it clear that 
Germany has learned a lesson in this respect, and learned it at 
the price of being branded in the eyes of the neutral nations as 
a military menace to the world's peace. 

Expects Sentiment to Change 

"I have faith in the sense of justice of the American people," 
said his Highness, "once we can get to them the actual facts 
and the actual truths back of this conflict. I know that up to 
this time it has been im.possible for them to thoroughly under- 
stand our situation, but I believe that when the truth is known 
to them the fair-mindedness and the love of fair play, which has 
always characterized the acts of your coimtrymen, will result in 
a revulsion of sentiment in our favor. 

"I had many friends in America. I believe I still have some 
there. I also have many friends in England — or rather had," said 
the Prince, with a rueful smile and a shake of his head. Then, 
turning abruptly and looking me squarely in the eye, he said: 

"I want you to tell me exactly what is said about me in 
America." 



/ 



CURRENT MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE WAR 7 

I hesitated a moment, trying to figure just how much frank- 
ness was compatible with discretion in discussing personaHties 
with the Crown Prince of the German Empire. Apparently 
reading my thoughts, his Highness laughed good-naturedly, and 
prompted: 

"I like frankness and can Stand the truth. Go ahead. I 
really want to know." 

"Well," I replied, "the fact is that your Imperial Highness 
has been very generally represented, or misrepresented, as one 
of the Kriegshetzer, a war agitator, leader of the war party, and 
exponent extraordinary of militarism." 

Do They Believe I'm a Thief? 

■'Yes, I know," said the Crown Prince, nodding his head in 
assent and giving no evidence of surprise, "and the English 
press says all that and much more. The English papers have 
stated that I am a thief and that I have personally robbed and 
pillaged these French houses in which we have been forced to 
make our headquarters. Really — and I want you to tell me 
frankly — is it possible that intelligent people in America or even 
in England can honestly believe such things of me? Can it be 
possible that they believe me capable of stealing pictures or art 
treasures, or permitting the looting of French homes?" 

I reminded him that in war times sane judgment often went 
by the boards. 

"I know, but it is simply incredible that people could believe 
what the EngHsh papers have printed about me personally and 
about our side of the war. Let's see, h'ow many times have I 
committed suicide or been wounded?" 

I admitted that I had lost covmt. 

"I am supposed recently to have been badly defeated on the 
Russian frontier," chuckled his Highness. "But this whole 
business would be much more amusing," he added in a more 
sober tone, "if I did not know that as a result of it the pubHc in 
neutral countries is being misled. As to my being a war agitator, 
I am truly sorry that people do not know me better." 

" No War Party in Germany " 
"There is no war party in Germany now and there never 
has been. I cannot help believing that it will very soon dawn 
upon the world that so far as Germany is concerned this conflict 



8 CURRENT MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE WAR 

is not a war waged by some mythical party, but is a fight backed 
by the unity and solidarity of the German Empire. This unity 
is the best answer to the charge with which England is endeavor- 
ing to terrify the world — that the war is being pushed by an 
ambitious military clique." 

The young soldier laughed heartily when I told him that the 
Russian press bureau had recently reported that their troops 
nearly captured the Kaiser during a recent engagement near 
Warsaw. 

"I must tell father about that. I am sure it will be news to 
him and that he will enjoy it," he said. 

Praises French Troops 

Switching to the subject of the enemy, the Crown Prince 
said: 

"The French soldiers are surpassed by none for their bravery, 
fhey have fought splendidly. Individually, the French soldier 
is equal in every respect to our own intelligence, and in some 
things is quicker and more agile. But he is a defensive fighter 
and lacks the dogged determination and staying power of our 
troops when it comes to offensive work. Events have shown 
that French leadership has been excellent, and it has commanded 
our admiration." 

After a half hour's interview we were interrupted by an 
officer who reported to the Crown Prince that his staff was 
mounted and waiting outside. First inviting me to have dinner 
with him that evening, his Highness excused himself, and, mount- 
ing his horse, galloped away to the scene of the day's fighting. 

During dinner he returned to the subject of America and his 
desire to visit our country. 

Had Planned Trip Here 

"I had all arrangements made for a visit two years ago," he 
said, "but poHtical objections prevented my trip. I had deter- 
mined on a visit this year and had planned a himting trip with 
Ambassador Gerard, but the war has, of course, spoiled that. 
Some time, however, I intend to make the trip. I am especially 
intexested in your big industrial centers like Pittsburgh and 
Chicago, and in your beautiful cities like Detroit, San Francisco 
and Portland. 



CURRENT MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE WAR 9 

" I am most anxious to see one of your baseball games and one 
of your baseball crowds. You know I have been greatly inter- 
ested in sports and in furthering them with consideration to the 
physical training of our young men. Personally, it has been a 
big disappointment to me that the war has made impossible the 
scheduled Olympic games at Berlin." 

A glance at the reading table in the Crown Prince's room 
nailed the generally repeated story that he reads only what is 
clipped for him. I saw on his table leading American, English, 
French and Italian papers, with several numbers of Puck and 
Life. I asked him what he thought of American humor, and he 
replied that Life was one of his favorite magazines because of its 
clever poKtical satire, its wisdom and its faculty for puncturing 
conceit. The conversation developed that I have an acquaintance 
with Jack London. 

He Likes Jack London 

"London is one of my favorite American authors," he said, 
"and I would like very much to meet him. I think that his 
portrayal of nature and the breath of the outdoors, together 
with his forcefulness, give his writings great power." ^,,,— — ^ 

I reminded him that London was a Socialist. 

"That would not make me want any less to know what kind 
of a man writes such books," was the quick reply. 

Our conversation drifted along freely, skipping about from 
war to Hterature, to sports and to human nature generally. It 
was impossible, however, for me to get from his Highness for 
quotation any statement of a poHtical nature. Our general talk, 
however, served to convince me that if this young man, who will 
in all probability one day rule the German Empire, was ever the 
hot-headed and boisterous youth he has been painted, the war 
has turned him into a sober, earnest, thoughtful man, with a 
deep sense of his responsibility. Despite his boyish appearance 
(he does not look his 32 years) the Crown Prince is the most 
modern and up-to-date thinker I have met in German officialdom. 

A Natural Human Being 

The keynote of his make-up is his simplicity, lack of affecta^ 
tion and the faculty he has of impressing you with the idea that 
he is just a natural human being, a man among men, with a 
quiet dignity,' no poses and a hearty and freely-expressed dislike 



lo CURRENT MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE WAR 

of pomp. There seems little doubt that his reputation for break- 
ing precedents and disregarding traditions, especially if they have 
a tendency to hamper progress, is well earned. He is no diplo- 
mat, knows and admits it. He gives the impression of knowing 
his own limitations, but has a straightforward manner and an 
inclination to say just what he thinks, which makes him both 
trouble and friends. He has an unusual trait of being able to 
hear the unpleasant truth with good grace. His greatest an- 
tipathy is to flatterers. 

From my conversation with him I gathered that the Crown 
Prince is strongly opposed to bureaucracy and everything stand- 
ing between the people and their ruler. It developed from my 
conversations with members of his staff that it is almost im- 
possible to get him to sign the death sentence of a convicted spy 
or franc-tireur. 

Recently when the French stormed the German trenches in 
the Argonne and were hurled back at one point with an unusually 
heavy loss, the Crown Prince offered the French a truce in order 
that they might gather up their wounded, who strewed the 
ground before the German trenches. When I asked the Crown 
Prince about the incident, he replied: 

"Yes, there were several hundred dead and wounded in front 
of our trenches. I simply could not stand it, thinking of those 
brave fellows badly wounded, and Ijdng there, many of them 
dying within a few yards of our doctors and nurses, while others 
were trying to drag themselves inch by inch toward our or their 
own trenches. I almost had a row about it with my Chief of 
Staff, who opposed me in the matter, saying the French would 
only report that we had asked for a truce because v/e were 
defeated. But I insisted on a white flag bearer being sent to 
the French trenches with an ofter to give them time to get their 
wounded or allow uS to get them. They refused, and, as a result, 
hundreds of those wounded fellows who might have been saved 
perished miserably. Some of them lived three or four days 
without food, water or medical attention. The whole thing 
seemed to me an instance of senseless and useless cruelty." 

As a matter of fact I learned from other officers that the 
Chief of Staff was right in his judgment. The French did report 
that the Germans had asked for a truce. 

I found among the officers of his staff, mostly all young men 



CURRENT MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE WAR ii 

like himself, the Crown Prince is an idol. From elder officers, 
I learned that the young man has demonstrated an unusual 
capacity for strategic problems, and the prediction is made that 
the war will serve to place him in the list of Germany's greatest 
generals. 



WHAT IS GERMAN " CULTURE '»? 

Editorial from the "North American," Philadelphia, 
Saturday, November 28 

In counting up the adverse influences which have beset Ger- 
many in her relations toward the world, most of us consider only 
the armaments allied against her and the moral opposition 
aroused against certain of her acts and policies. Yet there is 
another thing, a seeming trifle, which has had a potent effect 
in causing misunderstanding of German thought and purpose, 
and misunderstanding is the parent of injustice and emnity. 

This handicap Hes in the difficulty of expressing German 
ideas with exactitude in other languages, and particularly in 
English. Next to a democratic form of government and a some- 
what higher conception of international morahty, Germany's 
most urgent need, we should say, is a competent interpretation. 
An expert translator with sufl&cient authority to command atten- 
tion and sufficient familiarity with both languages to render into 
idiomatic English the phraseology of her public affairs and utter- 
ances would be a priceless treasure to the Empire. 

The possibilities of confusion that lurk in hasty, ill-considered 
translations from one tongue to another are really stupendous. 
There are thoughts and ideas quite elementary to one people 
which members of another race cannot mentally visualize with 
even approximate accuracy. 

For example, the Japanese who speaks of his "honorable 
grandmother" expresses a pious veneration which reaches back 
into the dim regions of antiquity and passes the borderland of 
religious sanctity. Yet a fictitious Japanese schoolboy of current 
American humor makes the phrase "Hon. grandmother" ir- 
resistibly comic. 

To give another instance from the same nation, a Japanese 
convert to Christianity rendered into his tongue the solemn 
words "Rock of Ages, cleft for me." His intent was the most 
pious in the world, but his hearers among his own people were 
profoundly puzzled by reading the Japanese equivalent of "Very 
old stone, split for my benefit." 



CURRENT MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE WAR 13 

That Germany has suffered seriously by the perversity of 
transplanted words is not to be doubted. While she was at 
peace with all the world, no great damage to her standing was 
apparent. But no sooner had she become involved in war than 
her foes and her critics made joyous use of distorted translations 
which had long been current. 

The Kaiser, as the most noted and most picturesque spokes- 
man of the nation, has naturally been the chief victim in this 
regard. His exalted mysticism and his profound conviction of 
his high mission in the world have exaggerated the widespread 
inisconception of some of his most familiar utterances. Phrases 
that to his own people ring true and are filled with kingly nobility 
have been so marred in being carried into other tongues that 
they have sped round the world amid irreverent laughter. 

"Supreme war lord" — thus, as everybody knows, his Imperial 
Majesty is sometimes addressed, and thus he is wont to name 
himself in his stirring exhortations to his troops. It is a mouth- 
fiUing term, worthy of the miUtary magnificence and worshipful 
pomp that supposedly envelop the Kaiser, and has become so 
embedded in popular thought that it would be hopeless to en- 
deavor to pry it out. 

Yet the fact is that the phrase as it has reached us is wholly 
misleading. Wilhelm II. never was hailed and never described 
himself as "supreme war lord" of the German people. The title 
he uses, with perfect right and propriety, is "Oberkriegsherr," 
and its real meaning is pretty well rendered by " commander-in- 
chief," a title which the President of the United States bears in 
his capacity as head of the army and navy without arousing 
fears of imperialistic designs. 

Since the beginning of hostilities, the Emperor's words have 
been more closely scrutinized than ever by his foes. A perfect 
fusillade of criticism was leveled at him a few weeks ago by 
persons whose religious sensibilities had been shocked by a 
sentence in an address to a regiment. 

"We shall yet destroy our enemies," ran the report of the 
imperial speech. "Our old God up there will give us the victory." 

This was really too much. A belief in the divine right of 
kings is bad enough, but it is intolerable that the delusion should 
be carried so far that a man, however exalted, should invoke the 
Creator with such arrogant familiarity. The reference to "our 



14 CURRENT MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE WAR 

old God up there" seemed in wretched taste, and that the 
German people did not resent it proved, of course, their pagan 
depravity. 

Unfortunately for the value of this criticism, however, the 
Kaiser^s words had no such meaning as was attributed to them. 
His religious faith is one of the passions of his Ufe, and his pious 
veneration for sacred things a habit founded upon deep con- 
viction. What he really said was, "Our ancient God on high 
wUl give us the victory," and, whatever may be the thought of 
his theory, the most bitter opponent cannot justly complain of 
his phraseology'. 

But these examples of error in regard to German ideas are 
trifling compared to a misconception which is even more baseless. 
If we were asked to name the one thing most hurtful to the 
German cause we should hesitate whether to cite the violation 
of Belgium's neutrality, the sack of Louvain or the phrase 
"German culture." 

Certainly the first two have created a vast volume of un- 
favorable judgment, but the third has had an inflammatory 
effect upon the pubKc mind that is quite deadly. And all through 
a misunderstanding. 

The prominence of German "Kultur" in the controversy is 
due to its persistent emphasis by all spokesmen for that side. 
The Kaiser exhorts his troops to defend the Fatherland and 
"Kultur." It was Teutonic "Kultur" that was in peril from 
Russian barbarism, necessitating an invasion of Belgium. The 
imperial Chancellor used it in his oration to the Reichstag, and 
it appears in all the manifestoes of statesmen, diplomats, soldiers, 
journaHsts, university professors and other advocates for the 
Empire. 

German "Kultur," we have been instructed, is the very soul 
of Teutonic civilization, the uplifting force in Europe, the one 
thing needful to regenerate the world. Beside it, the "Kultur" 
of any other nation whatsoever is a pitiable counterfeit. It 
sanctified the ambitions of Pan-Germanism and justified every 
device used to spread its beneficent influence. 

Now, to most non-Germans, this apparent claim to the 
possession of an exclusive "culture" was at first merely amusing. 
Students of the glories of genius in art, music, literature and 
science, which are the heritage of the Latin and Celtic and 



CURRENT MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE WAR 15 

Anglo-Saxon peoples, found the solemn assumption of Teutonic 
superiority quite exhilarating. 

But in time the word became an irritation. The air of bland 
fijiahty with which it was uttered by German sympathizers 
seemed almost offensive, and by common consent their own 
weapon was turned against them. 

"Confound your 'culture'!" said the exasperated world. 
"Some of us had scholarship and polish and spiritual enUghten- 
ment when you were barbarians, and we have works of genius 
which tower above your best productions hke mountain peaks 
above a plain. Moreover, we do not observe in your social 
habits, your poHtics or your international relations any im- 
pressive signs of a special refinement which we might profitably 
adopt." 

Hence it became a habit among Germany's critics to fling 
her "culture" in her teeth. The most inexpert controversiaHst 
could make a telling point by inquiring whether the repudiation 
of treaties and the burning of cities were evidences of German 
"culture" in operation. 

Yet all this is lamentably unjust. Germany has not arrogated 
to herself the possession of the highest " culture." Her " Kultur " 
is something quite apart from the popular meaning given to the 
term used to express it in Enghsh. 

Culture, in the narrow sense in which most of us use it implies, 
development of the mind, refinement of the sensibilities, enlarge- 
ment of the spiritual vision, encouragement of lofty aspirations. 
"Kultur," on the contrary, is intensely practical and material- 
istic. It is an all-embracing term for advanced civilization. 

When the German speaks of "Kultur" he means not only 
scholarship and artistic genius, but all the developments in 
governmental, social and economic betterment. 

He includes expert and honest municipal rule, scientific 
efficiency in industry, education and military training, high 
standards of service in pubHc utilities, conservation of natural 
resources, effective measures of public sanitation, an aggressive 
commercial pohcy, the ameHoration of poverty and the elimina- 
tion of uneconomic Hving conditions, old-age pensions, industrial 
insurance and a thousand other results of German thoroughness 
in dealing with the problems of existence. 

'^Kultur" means not only achievements in the arts and sciences, 



i6 CURRENT MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE WAR 

but in everyday progress. It embraces not only poems and sym- 
phonies, but dirigible airships, sanitary tenements and scientific 
sewage disposal. It covers the whole range of German civilization. 

It is for this that the German people are fighting. 
Rightly or wrongly, they are possessed with the idea that other 
nations have plotted to destroy it, and they have proved them- 
selves ready for any sacrifice to preserve it. 

Humanity may properly deplore and resent the theory that 
this *'Kultur," magnificent as it is, justifies the ignoring of 
treaties as "scraps of paper" and efforts to impose it upon free 
nations by force of arms. But it must be conceded that the 
cause is not so trifling as generally supposed. 

How much Germany has suffered from the worldwide mis- 
conception of her favorite word, it would be impossible to estimate. 
But our judgment is that she might profitably exchange her 
whole fleet of armored Zeppelins for a plan that would blot out 
the fatally misunderstood word "culture" from her propaganda 
and from the memory of mankind. 



HAS THE UNITED STATES GUARANTEED 
THE NEUTRALITY OF BELGIUM? 

{New York Sun, Nov. 23, igi4.) 

Judge George Chandler Hqlt, formerly of the United States 
District Court for this district, has raised again in the Independent 
the strange question whether our Government, as a signer of the 
Treaty of The Hague, is therefore a responsible guarantor of the 
neutrahty of Belgium. Let us be careful to state this remarkable 
proposition in Judge Holt's own words: 

"But the gravest infringement of the Hague Convention 
which has taken place in this war is the violation of the neu- 
trahty of Belgium. The neutrahty of Belgium was originally 
specifically guaranteed by a treaty between the principal Powers 
now at war, but to which the United States was not a party. 
But it is also guaranteed by the following general provisions of 
the Hague Convention, to which the United States is a party: 

"'The territory of neutral Powers is inviolable. 

" ' Belhgerents are forbidden to move troops or convoys of 
either munitions of war or supplies across territory of a neutral 
Power. 

"'The fact of a neutral Power resisting, even by force, 
attempts to violate its neutrahty cannot be regarded as a hostile 
act.'" 

We do not see exactly what this estimable jurist and juris- 
consult is driving at. Apparently all that he desires is that the 
United States Government, as a signer of the Convention of The 
Hague, should register without further delay a formal and 
physically innocuous protest against Germany's violation of 
Belgian territory and the other aheged infringements of the 
general compact concerning the rights of neutrality. 

Judge Holt Wrong 
But if Judge Holt were right in his view of this nation's ob- 
ligations under the Treaty of The Hague, something more than 
futile accusations and ineffective protests would be our im- 
mediate duty. If the United States Government by solemn 
contract with the other Powers had made itself responsible for 
the maintenance of Belgium's neutrality it would be our plain 
duty to participate in the physical business of driving the invader 
from Belgian soil, of punishing him for his unlawful aggression, 

17 



i8 CURRENT MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE WAR 

of collecting from him by torce of arms the penalty of his offense 
and the solatium justly due to the innocent people he has injured. 

In other words, if Judge Holt were right, it would become our 
duty to make war on Germany for precisely the same reason 
which Great Britain has declared as her cause of war. 

There can be no doubt of this. Contract responsibility for 
Belgium's neutrality once being admitted on our part, there is 
no middle course between the cowardly repudiation of treaty 
obHgations and the full performance, no matter at what cost, 
of that duty which Judge Holt says we have undertaken as one 
of the responsible underwriters of Belgium's neutraHty. 

But it happens that Judge Holt is not right in his view of this 
nation's obligation under the several conventions of The Hague. 
Every one of these successive conventions was signed by the 
American delegates and ratified by the Senate of the United 
States under reservation of the declaration originally presented 
to the conference on July 25, 1899, and reiterated in almost 
identical words in the plenary session of the Conference of 
October 16, 1907, as follows: 

"Nothing contained in this Convention shall be so construed 
as to require the United States of America to depart from its 
traditional poHcy of not intruding upon, interfering with or 
entangling itself in the political questions or policy or internal 
administration of any foreign State; nor shall any tiling contained 
in the said Convention be construed to imply a rehnquishment 
by the United States of its traditional attitude toward purely 
American questions." 

There are two sides of the Monroe Doctrine, and both sides 
are here stated in quahfication or modification of any responsi- 
bilities we undertook at either of the Peace Conferences at The 
Hague. The first reservation amply covers the question which 
Judge Holt raises. 

That intelligent jurist will be quick to perceive the distinction 
between our undertaking to observe on our part the international 
rules laid down in the several treaties of The Hague and our 
undertaking to enforce the same rules in the case of European 
nations. He will be quick to see that in view of the broad 
reservation just quoted we cannot, by any stretch of imagination 
or parchment or paper, be regarded as a responsible guarantor 
of the neutrality of Belgium. 



CHAOS IN THE RULES OF WAR 

{,New York Sun, Nov. 25, 1914.) 

There is current just now much loose talk about the responsi- 
bility of the United States, as a signatory of the various con- 
ventions adopted at The Hague in 1907, for the appKcation and 
enforcement of the rules as to war on land, the rules as to war 
on sea, and the rules as to the rights and duties of neutrals which 
were enacted at that memorable Conference of forty-four Powers. 

Of the general sleaziness of thought and imperfection of 
knowledge concerning the status of these codes of war and 
neutrality we are having every day amazing illustrations by the 
dozen. Yesterday, Tlie Sun commented on the proposition of 
Judge Holt, in the Independent, that the neutrahty of Belgium, 
in addition to special treaties, was guaranteed by one of the con- 
ventions adopted at The Hague and that the United States 
Government was a party to that guarantee, with consequent 
responsibility and duty in the present situation. Now comes 
the Rev. George W. Douglas, the senior canon of St. John the 
Divine, with remarks which exemplify with sufficient inaccuracy 
the widespread misunderstanding on the subject. For that reason 
they afford a convenient text, and we accorcUngly use them as 
such. Canon Douglas is thus reported by the Tribune: 

"The United States was a party to The Hague Convention 
at which certain articles were signed by all the great Powers. 
As a party to such a contract, it is the duty of the United States 
to live up to the terms of the agreement, and to insist that other 
nations do the same. It was expressly stated that no armies 
should be moved across neutral territory, and that floating or 
unanchored mines should not be sown in the open sea. ^^.^ 

"For the United States to proclaim neutrality is right and 
proper. But neutrality does not mean that we shall see the 
terms of such articles violated without protest. Therefore, it 
is our duty when the terms of The Hague Convention are dis- 
regarded to remonstrate and hold up to censure the offending 
party^or parties. Any other course will brand us as cowards." 

19 



20 CURRENT MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE WAR 

The Exact Truth Stated 

It is about time that tJie exact truth should be stated about these 
rules of war and neutrality, supposed by almost everybody to be 
in force in tJie existing contest, d^nd likeTS'ise supposed by some people 
to devolve upon this nation responsibility for their assertion; at 
least to the extent of vigorous protest. 

The rules now generally believed to be binding upon the 
belligerents in Europe were embodied in the series of fifteen 
treaties or conventions signed by the representatives of the 
forty-four Powers at the second international Peace Conference 
at The Hague seven years ago ; these instruments being revisions 
and extensions of the original treaties signed at the first Peace 
Conference in 1899. Some of the more flagrantly disregarded of 
these pro\dsions we extracted from the several conventions and 
printed on this page yesterday under the heading "Scraps of 
Paper?" It may have been observed by those interested that 
to this exhibit we appended a note saving that many of the pro- 
positions were not ratified by "all" the Powers now belligerent, 
and that there was a question as to their force in the present war. 

It is somewhat of a coincidence that there also came yesterday 
from Washington the news that our State Department has 
reached the conclusion that the so-called Declaration of London 
is no longer to be regarded as vahd for the regulation of the pro- 
ceedings of belligerents in naval warfare. 

TJie broad fact is that none of tJie codes forfuulated at The Hague 
in igoy for tJte mitigation of the horrors of li'ar, for tJie preservation 
of the rights of private property, for the safeguarding of non- 
combatants, for the protection of neutral individuals and com- 
munities, can be regarded as legally valid or in force wuier the 
present circumstances. This means that the charge of perfidy or 
violation of a dehberately undertaken agreement drops out of 
sight in all such cases as where one or another of the belligerents 
has overrun neutral territor}% or bombarded unfortified towns, 
or pillaged defenseless \-illages, or dropped bombs without warn- 
ing on unarmed places, or exacted enormous blackmail from 
helpless cities. These are all removed from the category of viola- 
tions of treaty faith. 

No Treaties Violated 

They may still be deplored on general grounds of humanity and 
pubHc policy, they may be rebuked as contrary- to that vague 



CURRENT MI5CONXEPTIOX5 -\BOUT THE V\".\R 21 

thing known as "international law," but they can no htiger be 
denounced as the deliberate repudiation of engagements undert-akett 
by solemn contract in treaty form recorded at TJie Hague. This is 
true whether the offenses in question have been committed by 
Germans, by British, by Austrians, by Russians, or by French. 

The practical and legal exfemption of the fighting Powers from 
the operation of the rules of war enacted at The Hague may be 
illustrated by the one case already referred to, namely: the 
treaty prohibition of entrance upon neutral territor3T 

"The territor}- of neutral Powers is in\-iolable. 

"BeUigerents are forbidden to move troops or convoys of 
either munitions of war or supplies across the territory of a 
neutral Pov%-er. 

'* The fact of a neutral Power resisting, even by force, attempts 
to violate its neutrality cannot be regarded as a hostile act." 

These particular ''rules of war" are contained in the fifth 
Convention of the series of fifteen signed by the fort3--four 
Powers at The Hague in 1907. It is entitled ''Convention 
Respecting the Rights and Duties of Xeutral Powers and Persons 
in War on Land." Under other circumstances the foregoing 
prohibitions might be operative; but Article XX of this Con- 
vention sa}-s: 

"The pro\-isions of the present Convention do not apply 
except between Contracting Powers, and then only if all the 
belligerents are parties to the Convention." 

X'ow, although all the present belligerents may have signed 
this Convention, in the persons of their respective representatives 
at The Hague, only those Governments which subsequently rati- 
fied the Convention became parties to its engagements. In this 
case, Comention V was ratified only by Germany, the Utiited States 
oj America, Austria-Hungary , Denmark, Mexico, the XetJierlands, 
Russia, Siveden, Bolivia, and Salvador. It was not ratified by Eng- 
land or France. WJien France, therefore, became a belligerent, the 
German Government, by tJie very terms of this particular compact 
and catitract, was released froni its obligatian not to violate neutral 
territory, not to move troops or convoys of munitions or supplies 
across neutral territory, not to regard as a hostile act resistance on 
the part of the \-iolated neutral. We are sj>eaking. of course, of 
Germanv's \-iolations of neutralitv only so far as thev relate to 



22 CURRENT MISCO^XEPTIONS .\BOUT THE WAR 

obligations contracted at The Hague; not to other treaty ob- 
stacles to freedom of war action. 

About Bombs and Explosives 
In the same way, the treaty prohibition of the bombardment 
of undefended towns, of looting, of outrages on the non-combatant 
population, of the le\y of excessive penalties on captured cities, 
of the destruction of historic mommients, and so on, is contained 
in the various articles of Convention IV, ''Respecting the Laws 
and Customs of War on Land." The second article of that Con- 
vention is as follov/s : 

"The pro\isions contained in the Regulations [annexed to 
the Convention], as well as in the present Convention, do not 
apply except as between Contracting Powers, and then only if 
all the belligerents are parties to the Convention." 

This Convention was ratified by Germany, the United States, 
Austria, Great Britain, and Russia, but not by Fratice. So far 
as it was a binding contract its requirements were suspended 
when France entered the fight. 

What we have said of the fifth and fourth Conventions is 
equally true of these others in the series: 

I "VHI. Relating to the laying of automatic submarine contact 

mines. Ratified by Germany, Austria, and Russia, but not by 
Great Britain and France. 

"EK. Concerning bombardment by naval forces in time of 
war. Ratified by Germany, x\ustria. Great Britain, Russia, but 
not by France. 

"X. For the adaptation of the principles of the Geneva 
Convention to maritime warfare. Ratified by Germany, Austria, 
and Russia, but not by Great Britain and France. 

"XL Relating to the right of capture in naval war. Ratified 
by Germany, Austria, and Great Britain, but not by Russia and 
France. 

"XIII. Concerning the rights and duties of neutral Powers 

in case of maritime war. Ratified by Germany, Austria, and 

Russia, but not by Great Britain and France. 

") I "XIV. Prohibiting the discharge of projectiles and explosives 

I from balloons. Ratified by Great Britain, but not by France, Russia, 

Germany, and Austria.^^ 

In each of these Conventions, covering as they do almost the 
entire range of questions of mooted propriety of conduct during 



CURRENT MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE WAR 23 

war, there is an article identical Vvith or similar to that which is 
printed above, nulHfying the entire Convention unless all the 
contestants are parties to the same. 

Thus the entire fabric of prohibition, restriction, regulation 
in the interest of humanity and more civiHzed methods of war- 
fare, is thrown into chaos, so far as the conventions of The Hague 
are concerned, by this pervasive article obliterating the contract 
obligations in all cases where any one of the belligerents happens 
not to be a contracting party. 

In the present war, therefore, the ambitious attempt at 
codification becomes a mere scrap of paper, legally invahd and 
void. 

And what becomes of the persistent idea that the United States 
Government, as a party to these several Conventions, is in duty 
bound to intervene by act or protest to enforce regulations which 
have been made inoperative by the provisions of the treaty itself ? 



NO RULES OF WAR 

Remarks on the Discovery that Practically All of The Hague Conventions 

Are Suspended by the Failure of Some of the Present Belligerents 

to Ratify 

{New York Sun, November 27, 1914) 

To THE Editor of The Sun — Sir: Permit me to thank you 
for the article on the "Chaos in the Rules of War." The Sun 
may Hve in a small building, but it has a big head for getting at 
the facts. The Sun surely shines for all. My first impression 
of the war was that Germany was responsible for starting it, 
and that she had acted the part of a desperate highway robber, 
violating every treaty and every law of civilized warfare. This 
impression was, of course, created by means of the news certified 
to us by way of London. 

Your article of to-day puts Germany in the right, in so far 
as the Conventions of The Hague of 1907 are concerned; and 
it is rather astonishing to find that while Germany ratified five 
out of the six articles named by you, Great Britain refused to 
ratify three of the six. 

If we assume that England was as well informed as you are 
regarding these articles, and it is inconceivable that Sir Edward 
/ Grey was not, then what must we think of the attitude of Eng- 
'' land, trying to make the people of the United States believe 
that Germany violated Belgium's neutrality, and that she entered 
this war for the purpose of protecting Belgian neutrahty, which, 
by the way, she has not done, and which we are forced to believe 
she must have known she could not do? 

I feel sure many others will thank you for your splendid 
article of to-day, for I know the American people, of whom I 
am one, are desirous of giving a square deal to all the belligerents. 

George H. Gudebrod. 

Hartford, Conn., November 25, 1914. 



Perhaps Canon Douglas Does Not Quite Get the Point 

To THE Editor of The Sun — Sir: Inasmuch as in your 
editorial article of November 25 you have done me the honor 
of referring to a newspaper report of a recent address of mine, 
it is proper that I should correct an inaccuracy in that report. 

24 



CURRENT MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE' WAR 25 

The reporter failed to catch the important preamble to the 
passage of my speech which he took down. My preamble was: 

// the articles of The Hague Convention are not a negligible 
scrap of paper, then each of the contracting parties has a serious 
responsibihty. 

Then followed my remarks, which in substance are correctly 
given. 

If I understand it, the conJ:ention of your editorial article is 
that, although some of the ablest jurists and diplomats of our 
generation endeavored to draft a document which would be of 
permanent service to the world in international warfare, never- 
theless they failed, at least so far as this war is concerned, to 
make it binding. 

I have seen many statements of the case pro and con., but 
none that I can remember puts your view of it as clearly as your 
editorial article does. 

I have not seen Judge Holt's article, to which you also refer, 
and from what you say of it I gather that he does not agree with 
you. But even if your contention is altogether correct, may we 
not hope that the efforts of the next Hague Conference will be 
more effective after the awful lessons which the world is learning 
now? George William Douglas, 

Member of the World's Alliance for the Promotion oj 
International Friendship. 

New York, November 25, 1914. 



The present suspension of nearly all the rules of war, so far 
as the Conventions of the second Conference at The Hague are 
concerned, is accomplished ^not by neglecting but by strictly 
regarding the. terms of that compact. In each case specified 
some one or more of the Powers now belligerent failed to ratify, 
and, therefore, as the Conventions provide, the rules become 
inoperative. For the United States Government to undertake 
to protest, as Canon Douglas urges, agajnst the non-observance 
of rules voided by the treaty itself, would be to protest against 
the treaty itself. Canon Douglas can hardly persist in maintain- 
ing that to refrain from so doing is a course that will "brand us 
as cowards." As for Judge Holt's view of our treaty obhgations, 
and as for the circumstance that it does not agree with The Sun's 
view, we are quite content to let the Judge take care of the dis- 
crepancy in his own way. But we certainly share Canon Doug- 



26 CURRENT MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE WAR 

las's hope that the efforts of the next Peace Conference may be 
more effective. 



The Extent of This Nation's Responsibility for Protest or Enforcement 

To THE Editor of The Sun — Sir: Permit me, as an old and 
appreciative reader of The Sun, a few remarks bearing upon the 
editorial article in The Sun of yesterday headed "Has the United 
States Guaranteed the Neutrality of Belgium?" 

It would appear from this article that Judge Holt is of the 
opinion that as one of the signatories to the treaty of The Hague 
forbidding the violation of neutral territory by belhgerents, 
America is for that reason bound to enter at least a formal pro- 
test against Germany's invasion of Belgium. 

Commenting on this view, you seem to take the ground that 
for the reservation under which the American delegates signed 
and the United States Senate ratified this as well as other Con- 
ventions of The Hague it would be incumbent on the United 
States Government not only to protest against the invasion but 
to join hands with other signatory Powers in their efforts to 
expel the invader from Belgian soil. You also declare that "If 
Judge Holt were right it would become our duty to make war 
on Germany for precisely the same reason which Great Britain 
has declared." 

As a matter of fact, the provision of The Hague Convention 
quoted by Judge Holt amounts to no more than the formal 
expression and adoption of a principle of international law re- 
garded as well estabhshed for a century or longer by American 
as well as other publicists. But it has never been held, so far 
as I know, that a violation of the principle imposes upon neutral 
nations accepting it the duty of also enforcing it. Neither does 
the provision of The Hague Convention under consideration do 
so; and had America subscribed to it without any reservation 
whatever it would not be obliged to take up the cudgels for 
Belgium. 

In its insistence, as disclosed by the White Paper, that 
Germany keep out of Belgium, Great Britain did not rely on 
the principle mentioned, but upon the contract she entered into 
in 183 1 with certain European Powers, including Prussia — the 
German Empire was then non-existent — guaranteeing the neu- 
trality of Belgium, a newly formed and weak State. Indeed, she 
could not consistently have invoked this rule or principle, since 
in passing through Portuguese territory she had disregarded it 
in order to get at the Boers; and perhaps she foresaw also that 



CURRENT MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE WAR 27 

her Asiatic ally might find it convenient if not necessary to 
violate the territory of China for the seizure of the district 
Germany held under lease from that country, a task Great 
Britain had imposed, or intended to impose, upon the said ally. 

It may not be amiss to point out here, though outside of this 
discussion, that Great Britain's declaration of war on Germany 
was not altogether motived by her desire to keep Belgian soil 
inviolate, for, as again shown by the White Paper, she declined 
to commit herself when asked by Germany whether she herself 
would remain neutral in the war on condition that Germany 
regarded Belgium's neutrality. 

It would seem then that if Judge Holt's view v/ere correct, 
even as Umited by The Sun, heavy responsibilities would be 
added to those Uncle Sam has already incurred by the main- 
tenance of the Monroe Doctrine. Any attempt to carry such 
a view into effect would be an attempt to beat down wickedness 
all over the world, a manifestly impossible undertaking. 

A Constant Reader of The Sun. 
Washington, D. C, November 25, 19 14. 



If the eminent and respected gentleman who here modestly 
presents himself as "Constant Reader" will look again at the 
editorial article which in one particular he criticises, he will find 
that the extent of responsibility on the part of the United States 
was only conditionally discussed by The Sun. We said, "// the 
United States, by solemn compact with the other Powers, had 
made itself responsible for the maintenance of Belgium's neu- 
trality, etc." The supposition is no longer worth discussing, 
excepi; academically. A§ our esteemed "Constant Reader" will 
have seen since he wrote his letter, all question as to the extent 
of this nation's duty of interference or protest, either with or 
without the Monroe Doctrine reservation, is removed by the 
broad fact that so far as the compact of The Hague is concerned 
there has been no breach of treaty faith by Germany. Conven- 
tion V, "Respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers 
and Persons in War on Land," expressly provides that its pro- 
hibitions shall not apply "except between Contracting Powers, 
and then only if all the belligerents are parties to the Conven- 
tion." It is a somewhat noteworthy fact that in this instance 
the prohibitions fall because England and France failed to ratify, 
although Germany, Austria, and Russia did ratify. 



28 CURRENT MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE WAR 

Nobody to Fight; Nobody to Protest Against 

To THE Editor of The Sun — Sir: After reading your lead- 
ing editorial article to-day, based on Judge Holt's remarks as 
to the attitude which the United States should take because of 
the violation by a belHgerent of the territory of a neutral, it 
has occurred to me that there is one considerable difficulty which 
neither you nor Judge Holt mentioned. 

Against whom should the United States protest or fight? 
Against Japan and England for their xdolation of the unques- 
tioned neutrality of China, or against England for her alleged 
violation of Switzerland by her airships and of neutral waters 
by her cruisers, or against Germany for her invasion of Belgium, 
or against all three? 

Would it not be rather difficult, as well as practically in- 
effective, for the United States to fight against nations actually 
engaged in fighting each other? If the idea should be to fight 
one side until it should be beaten and then turn and fight the 
other side, why should we commence with Germany rather than 
with England and Japan? Their disregard of China's neutrality 
was without the excuse of the beHef of necessity, and was directed 
against a country which has not even been accused of secretly 
intriguing with their enemies. 

The fact that the Belgians have suffered terribly, while the 
Chinese have not, may have been due to errors of judgment by 
the Belgians themselves, and in any event does not affect the 
moral issues or the rights and duties of the United States, 

Henry Bennett Leary. 

New York, November 24, 1914. 



As already stated, the general suspension of responsibihty 
to observe the rules of war embodied in the several Conventions 
adopted at The Hague, and rendered inoperative in the present 
conflict by the failure of one or the other of the present belliger- 
ents to ratify, makes it idle to discuss the extent to which this 
Government ought to go in another case where the compact was 
operative. 



Not Gennany's Fault That the Conventions Are Inoperative 

To THE Editor of The Sun — Sir: Will somebody please 
tell me why England, which is fighting for the protection of 
neutral Belgium, did not ratify The Hague Convention V, "the 
territory of neutral Powers is imdolable," etc., and wh}'' the 
German "Huns" did sign it? 



CURRENT MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE WAR 29 

Will you please tell me why England, which is fighting for 
civilization, humanity, etc., did not ratify The Hague Con- 
ventions VIII, IX, X, XI and XIII, and why the German 
barbarians did? 

Would it not have been human and civilized if England had 
then acted in these matters by deeds instead of hot air? 

Frederick Peters. 

New York, November 25, 1914. 



We take it that Mr. Peters will be satisfied to have his ques- 
tions printed, even if nobody attempts to answer them. It is 
only fair to say that of the eight principal conventions, to the 
present status of which The Sun has called attention, seven were 
ratified by Germany, and Hkewise by Austria. The eight con- 
ventions fail in the present war through the circumstance of 
non-ratification by France in all eight cases, by Great Britain 
in four cases, and by Russia in two cases. The one convention 
which Germany did not ratify is that relating to the discharge 
of projectiles and explosives from balloons. This failed of rati- 
fication by France and Russia, as well as by Germany and her 
ally Austria. 

We acknowledge the receipt of a number of other interesting 
communications on this highly important and decidedly en- 
lightening subject. These letters either closely parallel those' 
printed above or, on account of their length, must await the 
opportunity of space and special attention. 



THE CONTRIBUTION LEVIED AGAINST 
BRUSSELS 

{From " German ' Atrocities ' and International Law." By James G. McDonald, 
Assistant Professor of European History in Indiana University. Pub- 
lished by the Germanistic Society of Chicago.) 

Very important is the charge of illegally levying vast assess- 
ments against the city of Brussels and the pro\dnce of Brabant. 
The amounts, $40,000,000 and $90,000,000, respectively, are 
named, but practically nothing has been given as to the exact 
terms of assessment or collection. The second assessment has 
been denied. The first has been admitted, though the exact 
amount, it is said, has not yet been fixed. 

The international law of such "contributions" was defined 
in 1907 by The Hague Convention, regulating the "Laws and 
Customs of War on Land," as follows: 

Article 49. "If, besides the taxes referred to in the pre- 
ceding article, the occupant levies other money contributions 
in the occupied territory, this can only be for military pur- 
poses or the administration of such territory." 

Article 51. "No contribution shall be collected except 
under a written order and on the responsibility of the Com- 
mander in Chief. The levy shall only take place, as far as 
possible, in accordance with the rules in existence and the 
assessment in force for taxes. For every contribution a receipt 
shall be given to the payer." 

These articles seek to Umit the amount of "contributions" to 
what is needed within the territory actually occupied, either for 
mihtary necessities or for administrative purposes. Contribu- 
tions so hmited are undoubtedly legal. 

This war-right has been held "to be pecuharly unjust and 
wanting in that spirit of s\anpathetic concern for national feeHng, 
which informs the modern usages of war so largely." It is true 
that "it seems cruel" to allow the Germans occupying Belgium 
to make Belgians contribute to the support of that army which 
is holding them in subjection. It is true that "contributions" 

30 



CURRENT MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE WAR 31 

are "a relic of the vested rights which an invader once possessed 
to money, goods, and labor of the people he had temporarily 
conquered." But is war itself not a rehc of barbarism? 

In reality, "contributions," if not extortionate, and if levied 
in lieu of requisitions (demands for supphes, e.g., horses, cattle, 
etc.), and to supplement or substitute for the regular taxes, may 
be the most humane method of supporting a conquering anny 
in an enemy country. A concrete case, cited by a German repre- 
sentative at the international conference at Brussels in 1874, will 
illustrate how "contributions" may be a valuable method of 
equalizing a heavy military burden: "An army arrives at a rich 
town, and demands a certain number of oxen for its subsistence. 
The town rephes that it has none. The army would be compelled 
in that case to apply to villages, which are frequently poor, where 
it would seize what it is in want of. This would be a flagrant 
injustice. The poor would pay for the rich. There is, therefore, 
no other expedient but to admit an equivalent in cash. This is 
likewise the mode which the inhabitants prefer. Moreover, it 
cannot be admitted that a town which is unable to pay in kind 
shall be exempted from paying in money." 

The last edition of the British Field Service Regulations echoes 
this same defense, when it authorizes commanders to raise ^^con- 
tributions in order to distribute the burden of levying the supplies 
more evenly over the whole population," for otherwise it is only 
the inhabitants immediately or near the line of march who feel 
it. "By levying contribution," this article continues, "in large 
towns, which are principal administrative centers or districts, 
and, by expending the sums so obtained in the purchase of sup- 
plies in outlying districts, the latter may be made to bear their 
share as well." 

"Contributions," then, are normally legal, as a measure of 
necessity to meet administrative or miHtary needs within an 
occupied territory. If levied as a supplement to or as a substitute 
for other and sometimes more onerous means of support these 
money assessments are perfectly legal. One authority on inter- 
national law has argued that these levies were illegal because, 
"according to The Hague rules^it is forbidden to penalize by 
pecuniary indemnity or personal punishment any general body 
of people for violation of the laws of war by a few. So that even 
if the Belgians had violated the rules of war, unless you can show 



32 CURRENT MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE WAR 

that the entire population of Brussels was, as a body, responsible, 
it is illegal to levy a heavy fine upon them." 

This is true. But the German military officers seem not to have 
levied a fine upon Brussels. Rather they seem to have imposed these 
levies, "in place of taxes j'^ and "in place of requisitions in kind." 
Hence their system of "contributions" may prove to be highly com- 
mendable. 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date; <»rp -nn 

Preservationlechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

111 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township. PA 16066 
(724) 779-2111 



> 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



012 794 871 9 



/ 



r' 



